Letter: Resident expresses disgust with pro-gun lobby

1
19

letters_flatTo the editor,

I am writing this letter to express my utter disgust with the pro-gun lobby. These groups are a bunch of boobs that fumble and give away the ball every time it is in their possession.

The recent passage of this unconstitutional gun control bill begs me to ask if these groups from the NRA. down to our own Connecticut Sportsman Coalition are as corporately controlled as the anti-gun lobby.

I have very strong opinions on this matter and they are not founded on any propagandistic slogan from either the left, or the right side of the political paradigm. Instead, they are based on constitutional law, FBI statistics and historical fact.

Now I wish to stay within those parameters when making my case here.

U.S. Constitution Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article 1 section 8 clause 15 To provide calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, Supress Insurrections, and to repel invasions. Article 1 section 8 clause 16 To provide organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as they may be employed in service of the Unites States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the training the militia in according with the discipline prescribed by congress.”

Connecticut State Constitution Article the first section 15 “Every citizen has the right to bears in defense of himself, and the state. …” 

 Now according to these principles, the right to keep and bear arms is the right to own a fill in the blank.

This is your constructional law where I see no enumeration power in either constitution to infringe or restrict a persons rights without due process, and also both constitutions recognize the militia because it pre-dates our country.

Also the militia act of 1792, by the way, is still on the books, requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 to be a member of this militia and to keep a military style firearm, a bayonet, and lots of ball and powder in your home incase you are called to alarm. Now beginning in 1865 the states began to allow their own militias to atrophy.  Where is the pro-gun lobby on this issue and why have they made no attempt what so ever to revitalize the militia? I’m sure all of the constitutional conservatives and many liberals as well would be thrilled to part of this institution and be prepared to defend our God given rights, mom, and apple pie from tyranny. 

Crime, now if anyone thinks that gun bans work, just look at Chicago or Washington D.C. Now in order to legally obtain a firearm it is next to impossible and they are the murder capitals of the country. Riddled with gun violence with a near complete ban on forearms ownership. Gun bans don’t work, period. In fact with the proliferation of firearms ownership, by FBI statistics, violent crime is down 40 percent over the last 20 years. Could it be that more guns equal less crime?

Now to express my disdain for our own state government. One can only wonder why they would blatantly violate your organic right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself and the state. First I need to focus on the Cheshire home invasion that happened back in 2007. Now even though the gun lobby was very quiet throughout the media coverage, they fumbled the ball and a turned it over. Understand they many citizens don’t believe that they have a right to self-defense because they have been told that by local authorities, instead you have the right to retreat. How come the progun lobby didn’t make a loud voice for an need for a stand your ground law such as Florida has, or even start stomping up and down like the antigun crowd, that we need a more firearm and self-defense friendly environment here in Connecticut. How about meeting with our legislators and handing to them over the articles from various papers throughout the country about how about the millions times a year, a firearm is effectively used for self-defense. With rarely a shot being fired. I am convinced that if Jennifer Petit was armed, she and her daughter would have been the victors and not the victims. As far as the Newtown shooting is concerned the investigation is still pending, yet I am also convinced that if we had this militia active and ready, that tragedy would have never happened. Any rebuttals?

James E. Thomas Jr.

Naugatuck

1 COMMENT

  1. I found your explanation of why we have a Constitutional right to bear arms to be compelling. I certainly support it. HOWEVER, I think it is reasonable to have background checks. From what I understand the pro-gun lobby believes the government will use this information (i.e., by creating a National Registry) to locate and confiscate all weapons. This would involve unlawful search and seizures. If we ever got to the point of a dictator in-charge of our armed forces, it won’t make much difference if we had automatic weapons with many rounds. Do you really think citizens with machine guns are going to stop our military? On the other hand, background checks could help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill. Please notice that I said help. It would not be full proof. I am not so naive to think background checks are ‘the answer’, but I do think it is wise to do it .